Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

The media are powerless.

This is perfect :lol

 

[BertramCooper]

Supreme Court appears ready to shake up how election districts are drawn

More at the link.

Journalists should stop making these sorts of predictions based on oral arguments.

Based on what I read from the case yesterday, I could easily conclude the opposite.

 

[Third Strike]

I hope this doesn't come to pass. Although, does this mean districts can't count prison populations as part of the voting populace anymore? Wouldn't that fuck over rural areas in the Midwest, South, and many parts of the Northeast?

 

[Iolo]

Existential Crisis Ryan:

But this one is just too funny.

I recognize that look. That's a "Sad Boehner."

 

[NeoXChaos]

Among those registered undeclared who say they are likely to vote in the Democratic primary, 55% back Sanders, 37% Clinton. Among registered Democrats, it's 47% Clinton to 40% Sanders.

Despite Sanders' overall advantage in the state, there is a growing sense of inevitability around Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire. About 6-in-10 (59%) say they think Clinton is most likely to win the Democratic primary there, up from 42% saying so in September, and 70% say she's got the best chance to win the general election next year, up from 51% in September.

.

 

[BertramCooper]

Basing districts on numbers of eligible voters instead of residents would be an absolute clusterfuck nightmare.

Like borderline impossible.

 

[B-Dubs]

I recognize that look. That's a "Sad Boehner."

I was wondering where I saw that look before! It's the same look Boehner always had! Goddamn, the job ate his soul pretty damn fast didn't it?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Maybe I'm just uninformed here, but it seems like basing the districts off of voter numbers instead of general population would be more fair. I don't really see what's wrong with that. I mean, sure, it would help rural voters and probably lead to more Republican representation, which I wouldn't really like, but it still seems like something that makes sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I wish we could have some Nevada polling. It's the third primary/caucus and yet hasn't been polled since the very start of October.

 

[BertramCooper]

Maybe I'm just uninformed here, but it seems like basing the districts off of voter numbers instead of general population would be more fair. I don't really see what's wrong with that. I mean, sure, it would help rural voters and probably lead to more Republican representation, which I wouldn't really like, but it still seems like something that makes sense to me.

Eight-year-olds can't vote. Do you expect your member of Congress to represent their interests despite this?

 

[pigeon]

FDR is not contemporary to a discussion about the US putting racial minorities in camps for national security reasons but Hitler is?

You asked "why do we compare Trump to Hitler but don't compare FDR to Hitler?"

Well, gee, Slim, there are a few reasons for that (like, it's probably worth noting that FDR fought a world war against Hitler), but primarily we don't compare FDR to Hitler because WE NEVER TALK ABOUT FDR. Because why would we, exactly?

If you wanted to talk about whether FDR was like Hitler, you probably could've just posted and asked what we thought. But instead you decided to assert that the reason we don't criticize FDR is because he's "on our team." So, yeah, that's a dumb post, man. The reason we don't criticize FDR is because this is a thread about politics and FDR isn't particularly politically relevant. It's not because we're biased to forgive his faults.

Come on, this is beyond pathetic. Why are we defending the lowest common denominator style of discourse here? What do we have left for people committing actual genocide when this is our standard of use?

Is this your real concern? That somebody will start committing genocide and we'll have run out of descriptors and won't be able to talk about them?

Language fascism, man.

Trump has stepped up racist and xenophobic rhetoric in an alarming way, and even more alarmingly, maintains a strong base of support.

I feel that this is bad! Specifically, I feel that it's bad in a particularly anti-American, anti-democratic way that appeals to fantasies of "populist" rule by personal power, displacement of the existing state apparatus, and blaming, scapegoating, and stigmatizing minorities for the country's problems in a manner that has worrying historical precedent, especially during the WWII period.

I feel okay saying that that's kind of fascist. If you don't like that because it's not precise enough, like, you do you, I guess, but I would like to understand why. Because I don't think my position is particularly unclear or confusing, so as far as I can tell so far the disagreement is driven by a desire to correct others? If that's the case, let me know and I'll put some grammatical errors in for you guys.

More to the point, do you consider FDR a Nazi or Hitler-esque? He actually did the very things you seem to suggest condones comparing Trump to Hitler. What about Truman who sanctioned immunity for Nazi/Japanese scientists guilty of war crimes in exchange for their knowledge/information? Why not compare Trump to them instead of Hitler unless it's just about insults?

Because those comparisons are dumb? FDR created Japanese internment camps, and yes, those are terrible and wrong. He didn't characterize Japanese people as being responsible for American problems in general, nor did he build a political career on being willing to put Japanese people in camps. So that's meaningfully distinct. Similarly, I see very little comparison between using xenophobic rhetoric for political advantage and giving scientists immunity for war crimes. I mean, do you think those things are similar? Do you want to make the argument?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, literally no American citizen of sound mind and over the age of 16 should be prevented from voting, and registration should be automatic on reaching 16. I'm ashamed of my country's voting restrictions compared to neighbours, then I look at some of the restrictions American states put in place and literally double take. The vast majority are just a concerted effort to strip the vote from black Americans, it's disgusting.

 

[sc0la]

Representatives represent EVERYONE in their district even non voting ones like, non citizen residents, children, disenfranchised (in prison or otherwise), so why draw a district that pretends they do not exist?

 

[BertramCooper]

Here's a more measured take on Evenwel v. Abbott from SCOTUS Blog.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/argument-analysis-the-choice-be-bold-or-practical/#more-235771

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Constitution explicitly endorses broad counts as opposed to voters. As it relates to non-citizens, I think the language about Indians not taxed shows that non-citizens should count.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Constitution explicitly endorses broad counts as opposed to voters. As it relates to non-citizens, I think the language about Indians not taxed shows that non-citizens should count.

I really hate arguments from constitution because they presuppose that the given constitution actually proscribes good laws - it may do on occasion, but this is not an a priori truth. If something is in the constitution and good, it was good anyway, if something is the constitution and bad, then following it doesn't make it better.

 

[Makai]

I really hate arguments from constitution because they presuppose that the given constitution actually proscribes good laws - it may do on occasion, but this is not an a priori truth. If something is in the constitution and good, it was good anyway, if something is the constitution and bad, then following it doesn't make it better.

We live in a nation of laws across the pond.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I really hate arguments from constitution because they presuppose that the given constitution actually proscribes good laws - it may do on occasion, but this is not an a priori truth. If something is in the constitution and good, it was good anyway, if something is the constitution and bad, then following it doesn't make it better.

I would agree abstractly/philosophically, but our legal system uses a different form of analysis. That analysis suggests to me a particular outcome.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We live in a nation of laws across the pond.

Every country lives in a state of laws, the United States just had a remarkably large number of bad ones.

Seriously though, entrenched constitutions suck. #QiP4lyfe.

 

[B-Dubs]

I really hate arguments from constitution because they presuppose that the given constitution actually proscribes good laws - it may do on occasion, but this is not an a priori truth. If something is in the constitution and good, it was good anyway, if something is the constitution and bad, then following it doesn't make it better.

While I do agree, there was a very good reason in this case so I feel OK with making that argument.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Eight-year-olds can't vote. Do you expect your member of Congress to represent their interests despite this?

Representatives represent EVERYONE in their district even non voting ones like, non citizen residents, children, disenfranchised (in prison or otherwise), so why draw a district that pretends they do not exist?

Hm, yeah. That makes sense. I don't know why I wasn't thinking about it that way. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I would agree abstractly/philosophically, but our legal system uses a different form of analysis. That analysis suggests to me a particular outcome.

Yeah, it's a legitimate argument for the Supreme Court to use, I was more stepping back and remarking on how inane the entire concept of a supreme court with effectively legislative abilities as wide-ranging as the United States' Supreme Court actually is.

 

[Makai]

Every country lives in a state of laws, the United States just had a remarkably large number of bad ones.

Seriously though, entrenched constitutions suck. #QiP4lyfe.

You're just jelly of our rockin' Constitution. Yours is probably like 30 years old or something.

USA

 

[Makai]

I found this while I was looking for a Constitution gif:

 

[benjipwns]

I couldn't find what I was looking for, probably because Bill Gates hasn't prevented dead links from occurring.

But since I did waste the time while everyone else moved on...

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed. You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.

Even the lightworker got a little carried away:

I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

...

We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.

That is why I’m determined to reach out – not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans who want to move in a new direction. And that is why I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate – I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.

This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program – this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.

...

Now I know what the cynics will say. I’ve heard from them all my life.

These are the voices that will tell you – not just what you can’t do – but what you won’t do. Americans won’t come together – our allegiance doesn’t go beyond our political party, region, or congregation. Young Americans won’t serve their country – they’re too selfish, or too lazy. This is the soft sell of the status quo, the voice that tells you to settle because settling isn’t that bad.

...

Renewing that spirit starts with service. Make no mistake: our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. If we keep paying dictators for foreign oil, gas prices are going to keep rising, and so are the oceans. If we can’t give all of our kids a world-class education, then our economy is going to fall behind.

And that’s how it should be. That’s the bet our Founding Fathers were making all of those years ago – that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common destiny of democracy; that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens. That’s what history calls us to do. Because loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger.

We need your service, right now, at this moment – our moment – in history. I’m not going to tell you what your role should be; that’s for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. I am asking you to change history’s course. And if I have the fortune to be your President, decades from now – when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten – I hope you remember this as a moment when your own story and the American story came together, and – in the words of Dr. King – the arch of history bent once more towards justice.

Ezra Klein sums up the media's view of Obama's disgusting speeches in 2008:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

blah blah blah but Trump

fascism is about the supremacy of the state at the cost of everything else, read il duce

notions of owing your state service and engagement to help build a kingdom on Earth is far more fascistic than anything i've heard from Trump, is he more xenophobic? of course, bigoted? yes racist even? good chance

but fascistic? not more than any other candidate when they start laying out their grand ideals of where the state will head under their hand and our necessary obedience to it (but party first sometimes) and i use obama here because he's the current president

trump is far too glib to outline any coherent rhetoric about the role of the state and whether it or the individual is supreme

obama also has a knack in his speeches for blurring the lines between distinct things as part of his theme of unifying us all to march forward through his false choices and purchase health insurance from large corporations

 

[Fenderputty]

That makes me wish we still had animated avatars.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

UK's constitution was 800 years old this year, and it's a pretty good model. Having said that, though, the world's best constitution from a political design perspective IMO is probably Sweden's, which is a relatively young 41.

 

[benjipwns]

UK's constitution was 800 years old this year, and it's a pretty good model.

It doesn't fucking exist!

And the U.S. Constitution was ideal in design, all these new fangled Constitutions are garbage with their listings of rights and disclaimers that override the rights bullhonkey.

They turn out like this:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html

Or even worse, this big fucking disclaimer at the start from our totalitarian frozen wasteland to the north:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

gibberish

 

[ivysaur12]

UK's constitution was 800 years old this year, and it's a pretty good model. Having said that, though, the world's best constitution from a political design perspective IMO is probably Sweden's, which is a relatively young 41.

What constitution?

 

[pigeon]

UK's constitution was 800 years old this year, and it's a pretty good model.

Constitutions that are annulled by popes totally don't count, man, cmon.

What constitution?

800 years is the clue here. He's talking about the Magna Carta.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It doesn't fucking exist!

It does.

"What the Queen-in-Parliament enacts is law."

How fucking sexy is that? Eight word constitution. I mean, the secondary constitution relating to electoral methods and the like is weak, but parliamentary sovereignty is all up in this shit.

And the U.S. Constitution was ideal in design, all these new fangled Constitutions are garbage with their listings of rights and disclaimers that override the rights bullhonkey.

They turn out like this:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html

Or even worse, this big fucking disclaimer at the start from our totalitarian frozen wasteland to the north:

gibberish

Yeah, I have no time for entrenched rights of any sort in constitutions. The only two blots on Sweden's constitution for me are the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression and the nature of entrenchment of the fundamental laws (just give me a simple referendum any day, none of this "two successive Riksdags with an election in-between" shit).

 

[benjipwns]

What constitution?

Constitutions that are annulled by popes totally don't count, man, cmon.

high fives all around bros

 

[gaugebozo]

Speaking of freedom of Expression, the "Freedom Day" episode of Futurama is on right now. I had forgotten how great this show was with political commentary. (And how great Nixon is).

Leela: Cool your jowls, Nixon. You may not like it that Dr. Zoidberg desecrated a flag. You might even find the image of it festering in his bowels somehow offensive. But the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Earth Constitution.

Nixon: Aroo! Maybe so. But I know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat!

[Scene: Supreme Court.]

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Constitutions that are annulled by popes totally don't count, man, cmon.

Confound their politics
Frustrate their Papish tricks
On Thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

 

[Makai]

I remember getting in trouble because I went through my high school's constitution and pointed out how dumb it was. Nerd.

 

[B-Dubs]

Speaking of freedom of Expression, the "Freedom Day" episode of Futurama is on right now. I had forgotten how great this show was with political commentary. (And how great Nixon is).

I imagine Trump would rule us like he was Futurama Nixon if hell froze over and he won.

 

[benjipwns]

Speaking of freedom of Expression, the "Freedom Day" episode of Futurama is on right now. I had forgotten how great this show was with political commentary. (And how great Nixon is).

Also, in a rare double-whammy decision the court finds polygamy constitutional.

 

[benjipwns]

From a different episode:

Fry: I refuse to testify on the grounds that my organs will be chopped up into a patty.
Judge Ron Whitey: Ah, the 67th Amendment.

 

[B-Dubs]

From a different episode:

You'd think that would fall under the fifth, but no.

 

[benjipwns]

I'd vote for him if Trump gave a rant like this:

Nixon's head: Listen here, missy. Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only thing that's different is me: I've become bitter, and, let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place. Muahahaha!

 

[ivysaur12]

800 years is the clue here. He's talking about the Magna Carta.

Yeah, I was more joking about the fact that I wouldn't call anything that the UK has a "constitution".

high fives all around bros

thnx

 

[gaugebozo]

I'd vote for him if Trump gave a rant like this:

All Trump needs is the robot body.

 

[Cerium]

edit: Wrong thread.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary Clinton posts on NeoGAF dot com, confirmed:

Jennifer Epstein ‏@jeneps
If you don't vote, "fine, just don't complain about anything," Clinton says after bemoaning results in Kentucky governor's race

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hillary Clinton posts on NeoGAF dot com, confirmed:

Who do you all think it is? PD? benji? Daniel B?

 

[Daniel B·]

New CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll

Bern 50%
Hillary 40%

Thanks for posting. I wonder how long it takes to recover from being tarred and feathered (according to Wikipedia, they didn't actually use petroleum (road) tar, which would have been painful, but pine tar, which isn't so bad).

Some very good numbers for Bernie in that poll (unless otherwise stated, Bernie vs Hillary percentages):

Definitely decided (Dec / Sep): 36 / 25
Would NOT vote for: 5 / 15
Least honest: 3 / 46
Most likeable: 60 / 22
Best on big banks / corporations: 54 / 32
Best on guns: 43 / 34
Favorability: 83 / 68
Age range (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65+): 30 / 25 / 27 / 18

Some anomalies :

Who will win NH primary: 28 / 59
Best chance winning GE: 17 / 70
Right experience to be pres.: 26 / 62
Best to kick ISIS's butt: 25 / 58
I'm voting for someone else / don't know : 3 (???) / 6

 

[ivysaur12]

oh my god

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/steve-king-muslims-congress-sharia-law

"Sharia law is incompatible with the United States Constitution and so if they want to demonstrate that they are open to being Americanized, the first thing they should do is renounce Sharia law," King told TPM. "You won't get Keith Ellison or Andre Carson in this Congress to renounce Sharia law, let alone somebody that's just come out of the Middle East that is someone who has been steeped in Islam for a lifetime."

As that interview ended, TPM also had a chance to talk with Ellison, who was walking by and shook hands with King. When asked to respond to King's comment, Ellison said it was "an incredibly ignorant statement."

"And when I say ignorant I don't mean it as an insult, I mean it as it is incredibly uninformed," Ellison said. "That is all I can really say."

 

[NeoXChaos]

Hillary Clinton posts on NeoGAF dot com, confirmed:

When the Democrats stop running Republican lite candidates like JBE I will start to care about voting.

 

[eBay Huckster]

When the Democrats stop running Republican lite candidates like JBE I will start to care about voting.

 

[ivysaur12]

Who do you all think it is? PD? benji? Daniel B?

Twist, it's Meta.

Also, omg:

Joe Scarborough ‏@JoeNBC
South Carolina GOP Poll
(post-Muslim Ban proposal)

Trump 35%
Carson 15%
Cruz 14%
Rubio 14%
Jeb 5%